Affordable Housing - Can it be done?

wisbech_lad

RHemmings wrote: »

You can make affordable housing without significantly affecting the price of existing housing (all else being equal) if you build affordable housing that no-one would want to live in unless they had absolutely no choice. I believe that the government and private industry would be entirely capable of this.

That is how it works in HK. 50% of the population live in government housing, on which there is no right to buy. Rents are very low, about 100 quid a month, and legally pegged to 10% of median family income or something like that. Size is around 400 sq feet or so (I had a girlfriend who grew up sleeping in a bunk bed in the living room, and doing her homework at McDonalds as McD had aircon, this was not considered odd)

If you want your own place, or something a bit bigger than govt housing, you need to pay up. The two markets don't really interact.

You get a few misers who don't mind living in govt housing, and having a mercedes, but not many. Some of the oldest blocks, until recently, had shared toilets and kitchens.

exprog

epz wrote: »

unless you have some plans for mass genocide that aint going to happen, in scotland we have seen house prices triple but the population decline or at best remain the same in the past 5 years. up here the cause has been slack lending policies and the council demolishing the traditional scum holes they used to own.

Rather exaggerated.

As I recall the (increasingly corrupt, but what's a few millions here and there) UN had a policy of gradually reducing world population by encouraging a reduction in birth rates. Many countries signed up to this. China enforced it by compulsory abortion. In the UK we had a government mini-quango (can't remember what it was called) to enthuse for it. This policy was pursued for decades with considerable success.

It has taken the current government of imbeciles (largely imposed on England by Scottish votes) to scrap that policy and create a pretend 'crisis' over pensions etc. We now have buffoons claiming we 'need' a higher population. In reality the main 'need' for an increased (largely through immigration) population is simply that existing voters are increasingly disinclined to vote nulab - apart from in Scotland, obviously.

Coupled with absurd economic policies (now on the verge of collapse) leading to no economic growth, apart from the illusion created by house price inflation, we have a pretty mess. No growth, no jobs, no money, high house prices, building of rubbish houses on flood plains, building in areas where the drinking water supply is insufficient, building where the sewers are already at maximum capacity, building over green fields leaving rain with nothing to do but flood urban areas.

Great place to be . :j

olly300

wisbech_lad wrote: »

That is how it works in HK. 50% of the population live in government housing, on which there is no right to buy. Rents are very low, about 100 quid a month, and legally pegged to 10% of median family income or something like that. Size is around 400 sq feet or so (I had a girlfriend who grew up sleeping in a bunk bed in the living room, and doing her homework at McDonalds as McD had aircon, this was not considered odd)

If you want your own place, or something a bit bigger than govt housing, you need to pay up. The two markets don't really interact.

You get a few misers who don't mind living in govt housing, and having a mercedes, but not many. Some of the oldest blocks, until recently, had shared toilets and kitchens.

Some Scandinavian countries have also done it this way. You build more accommodation to rent at an affordable rent controlled by the local government so you get rid of private landlords who rent slums out.

Gorgeous_George

olly300 wrote: »

Some Scandinavian countries have also done it this way. You build more accommodation to rent at an affordable rent controlled by the local government so you get rid of private landlords who rent slums out.

Not all private LLs let slums out. My BTL is at the same standard as my own home. And I make a profit. And the tenant gets a bargain.



GG

myusername_2

Personally I think that the priority of the government has to be to build more social housing with affordable rent (whilst getting rid of the awful "right to buy").

If more people had the option of living in social housing and paying affordable rent it would reduce the number of people who are stuck in the private sector having nearly all their monthly income sucked dry by the private landlords, investors and the "buy to let" brigade who are captilising on this current problem and the younger generations misfortunes.

With "buy to let" becoming more undesirable it would hopefully reduce the competition that first time buyers face from the "buy to let" brigade.

Guy_Montag

Maybe they could introduce right to buy for private tenants & force landlords to give us 30% discounts.

myusername_2

I don't think anyone should really see property ownership as a "right". So I think get rid of the right to buy full stop.

However, people do have a right to have a roof over their heads with affordable rent and quality of life and not to be exploited by the lucky few.

Gorgeous_George

Guy_Montag wrote: »

Maybe they could introduce right to buy for private tenants & force landlords to give us 30% discounts.

I would welcome such a scheme. When the time comes to sell I would like to be able to do a deal with my tenant. I'd be stung with about a £20K CGT bill at the moment. Gordie could give this to a long term and regular paying tenant. It would be about 25% of the property value and Gordie would get his money back in VAT and stamp duties over the years.



GG

A_Fool_&_His_Borrowed_Mon

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

As I wait for Gordie's pre-Queen's speech announcement that is expected to focus on affordable housing I thought I'd pose a few quick questions.

What makes housing affordable?

How can housing be built that is affordable? We already have houses that are:
built by cowboys
on flood-plains
have very small rooms and
no gardens

Yet these are considered NOT affordable. What can they possibly do to make the new ones more affordable. Surely, if the standards are maintained, the new houses will only be affordable at the first sale. Future sales of usded houses will adopt used house price values.

Obviously, higher IRs will lead to price reductions. But, higher IRs make houses less affordable (it is this that leads to the price falls). A smaller debt with a larger cost of borrowing hardly makes things more affordable.

IMHO, more houses is the answer.Let's hope the new ones have gardens and rooms that cats can be swung in.



GG

This question is dead simple like 1+1 = 2

How do we get affordable houses = Drop prices

Then they become affordable!
:money:


Funny how the simple & obvious answer elludes everyone, of course, it's the elephant in the room. So the answer is anything but drop prices.

dannyboycey

A_Fool_&_His_Borrowed_Mon wrote: »

This question is dead simple like 1+1 = 2

How do we get affordable houses = Drop prices

Then they become affordable!
:money:


Funny how the simple & obvious answer elludes everyone, of course, it's the elephant in the room. So the answer is anything but drop prices.

So what are you saying? If you had a 300k house and person A offered £300k and person B offered 200k, you'd sell it for the lowest price?

Houses are worth what people are prepared to pay. Simple. The obvious answer to me is to seriously tighten credit and slack lending. This is most easily done by raising interest rates - If people still keep borrowing and lenders keep lending irreponsibly, there will be more rises. The people that will lose out big time are those foolish enough to stretch themselves at the top of the market, just because they 'have to get on the ladder, before it's too late'.

A 'super-tax' on those with large property portfolios would also be welcome in my opinion.